Jammu & Kashmir High Court Directs Construction of Overhead Bridge or Underpass on Ring Road for Safe Passage of Villagers Minor Injuries No Bar for Framing Charges Under Section 307 IPC if Intent to Kill is Present: Supreme Court Prosecution's Case Full of Glaring Doubts:  Supreme Court Overturns Conviction in Abduction and Murder Case Allegations of Dowry Demand in FIR Found Vague and Driven by Civil Property Dispute: Supreme Court Quashes FIR and Chargesheet in Dowry-Cruelty Case Local Police Failed to Perform its Duties: SC Directs New Investigating Officer in Property Dispute Properties Acquired By Gift During Marriage Remain Separate Property Of Spouse Under French Civil Code; Husband Entitled To Half Share Only In Community Assets: Madras High Court Abuse Of Process: Supreme Court Dismisses Plea Against Closure Of Human Trafficking Complaint, Flags Lack Of Bona Fides Access To Justice Cannot Be Denied When Tribunal Is Not Functioning': Calcutta High Court Holds Writ Maintainable Under Article 226 Amid Stalled Conciliation Proceedings Violation Of Natural Justice Overrides Bar On Maintainability Under Section 18 MSMED Act: Orissa High Court Panic In A Train Does Not Mean Self-Destruction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants ₹8 Lakh Compensation For Passenger's Death In Stampede Section 101 JJ Act | Date Of Knowledge Of Order, Not Mere Knowledge Of Disposal, Commences Limitation Period: Delhi High Court Telangana High Court Quashes Order Declaring Inam Land As Govt Property Without Determining Occupancy Rights Proviso To Section 125(3) CrPC Does Not Limit Enforcement Of Monetary Relief Orders Under Section 20 DV Act: Telangana High Court Regularization Of Deviation Within Permissible Plot Envelope Governed By Uniform Fee Schedule, Arbitrary 5X Penalty Unsustainable: J&K&L High Court Man Who Blackmailed Woman With Her Own Nude Photos To Rape Her Repeatedly Can't Escape Conviction Merely Because His Voice Sample Wasn't Taken: Delhi High Court Arbitration Clause In Sale Agreement Cannot Be Invoked If Subject Matter Involves Third-Party Title Disputes: Madhya Pradesh High Court Trial Court Errs In Dismissing Amendment Plea If New Facts Emerge From Written Statement: Punjab & Haryana High Court 'No Compensation For Own Wrong': Gujarat High Court Rules Tortfeasors & Legal Heirs Cannot Claim Motor Accident Damages Under Section 166 MV Act Allahabad High Court Pulls Up Police And Magistrates Over Illegal Remand Of Juvenile Accused Section 13(1)(ia) & (ib) Hindu Marriage Act | Spouse Seeking Divorce On Grounds Of Cruelty And Desertion Must Prove Allegations With Cogent Evidence: Telangana High Court Cannot Let Land Become Banjar: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Appointment Of Receiver Under BNSS Amidst Pending Civil Title Disputes Section 8 Arbitration Act | Executing Court Must Refer Parties To Arbitration If Dispute Falls Within Scope Of Compromise Decree: Madhya Pradesh High Court Suit For Damages Arising Out Of Tortious Injury Barred By Limitation If Not Filed Within One Year: Punjab & Haryana High Court 72-Hour Gap Not Proximate: Calcutta High Court Quashes Murder Conviction, Holds 'Last Seen' Theory Inapplicable When Time Gap Is Wide Original Owner Cannot Create Trust Over Property Already Sold; Separate Relief For Title Declaration Not Required: Madras High Court

Scope Of Review Is Narrow, And It Is Allowed Only On Specific Grounds: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court of India has upheld its decision on review petitions, highlighting the limited scope of the review process. The judgment, delivered by Bench BELA M. TRIVEDI, J. On October 31, 2023, reaffirmed the principles governing the review of judgments in the country.

The Court observed that the power to review judgments is conferred by Article 137 of the Constitution of India, but it is subject to specific laws and rules, including the Supreme Court Rules, 2013, and Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure. The review process is intended to correct manifest errors and not to reargue the case.

Supreme Court Stated that the , “The scope of review is narrow, and it is allowed only on specific grounds, such as the existence of an error apparent on the face of the record.” The Court emphasized that a co-ordinate Bench cannot comment on the judgment of another co-ordinate Bench of equal strength, and subsequent decisions of co-ordinate or larger Benches cannot, by themselves, be grounds for review.

The judgment in question pertained to review petitions filed by parties aggrieved by a common judgment and order dated September 6, 2022, in Civil Appeal No. 1661 of 2020 and Civil Appeal No. 2568 of 2020. The Review Petitioners failed to establish an error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned judgment, which had meticulously considered the relevant provisions of the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code (IBC) and the Waterfall mechanism under Section 53.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s ruling reaffirms the limited scope of the review process and emphasizes that a review can only be sought on specific grounds related to errors in the judgment. This decision serves as an important precedent for future review petitions in the country.

Date of Decision: 31 October 2023

SANJAY KUMAR AGARWAL VS STATE TAX OFFICER (1) & ANR.   

Latest Legal News